Must Effective Democracy Be Limited to the Nation States - Literature review Example

Table of contents Table of contents 1 Must effective democracy be limited to nation states? Discuss with reference to the main theories of transnational democracy and their critics. 1 Definition of democracy 1 Democratic theory 2 Transnational democracy 3 Pillars of functional democracy 4 Domain of coalition governments 5 Possible effects 6 Radical republican democracy 9 Territorial democracy 10 Cosmopolitan Democracy 10 Liberal democracy 11 Deliberative Democracy 12 Conclusion 15 Reference list 16 Must effective democracy be limited to nation states? Discuss with reference to the main theories of transnational democracy and their critics. Definition of democracy According to Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, democracy is derived from two Greek words, ‘demos’ that is translated to mean ‘people’ and ‘kratos’ that translates into ‘rule’. It immediately follows that democracy is the ‘rule by the people’. On the political fronts, (Anderson, 2002) democracy1 is a ‘concept or a form of governance2, where people have equal voices’ on issues affecting their lives and have ‘equal contribution to issues that can shape governance3 policies’ and (Anderson 2002) is ‘expressed as a numeric value of majority vote of representatives.4’ Democratic theory Different literature support and others disapprove this notion that effective democracy should be limited to nation states5. Democratic theory according to (Shapiro1999) is ‘impotent’ by virtue of defining its scope6. Radical critiques of the current liberal democracy have called for widening of the democratic order (Held, 1996). It was only recently that democratic theorists have managed to move beyond nation state. As a result democratic theorists of modern democracy according to (Mitrany, 1975) believe in ‘anarchical society’ while democratic theorists of international relations either political or economic believe in democracy. The only exception is classical liberal Internationalism. Both Held (1995) and Clark (1999) have agreed that It was only in the after the end of the cold war era that it became possible for the international relations theory and democratic theory to reflect a common idea of should constitute democracy that is not governed by territorial borders and that has evolved to be termed as transnational or global democracy build on principles of global ethics. Transnational democracy Held (1995) and Clark (1999) have suggested that globalization has an effect of stimulating powerful political reactions and triggering public debate on the democratic credentials of governance that are not liable to territorial borders of a given nation state. Held (1995), Clark (1999), Beetham and Lord (1998), Dryzek (1999) and Woods (1999) have all reported that globalization has potential to stimulate public debate on democratic governance that is not limited to a nation state. Beetham and Lord (1998) reported that efforts to control globalization have been a political issue that sustains deliberation on direction that such assumed control of democratization should yield as well as deliberation on the political body of knowledge that should keep the deliberation process well informed. Anderson (2002) on the other hand has indicated that democratic transparency and accountability as well as civic participation are values that should characterize discourse for effective democratic reform. Ideas by (Anderson, 2002) support effective democracies can be limited to nation states through analysis of ‘pillars of a functional democracy’. Pillars of functional democracy There are three pillars of a functional democracy (Anderson) namely ‘legislature’ that is a body that is responsible for making and amending laws, ‘executive’ whose principal function is to govern according to and within the domain of law build by the legislature and the ‘judiciary’ that is composed of a ‘system of courts that administer justice’ based on laws provided by the legislature. Anderson (2002) has shown that any ‘action that is meant to separate the three pillars of a functional democracy’ constitutes need for prevalence of ‘tyrannical rule’ that is characterized by ‘authoritarian rule’ or ‘dictatorship rule’. Anderson (2002), Carmak (2006) and Donaldson (1928) all agree to the fact that such provision to separate the pillars of a functional democracy qualifies presence of and existence of ‘bureaucracy that is meant to undermine efforts’ for efficient execution of governance policies. Anthony (2002) indicated that ‘majority vote’ does not favour some politicians due to ‘race and religion oriented factors’. Internal factors within a nation state are of political value if they are ‘servicing the interests of a politician’. Effective democracy should therefore ‘exercise its powers’ within the nation state (Donaldson, 1928). Srinivasan (2006) suggests that competition following effective democracy ‘makes people to stay on toes’ and (Anderson, 2002) this has an effect of making governments to deliver their promises’. Anderson (2002), Srinivasan (2006) and Mcgrew (2004) all agree to the fact that many nation states have ‘limited time in power’ and this ‘calls for short term policies’ that affect and can positively have impact on the electorate. Anderson (2002) highlighted that ‘many democracies have rules that elections should be held regularly’ for instance, between a time period of four or five years. Anderson (2002) and Anthony (2002) agree that the ‘short lifespan is important’ because one of its effects is to ‘prevent part from becoming dictatorial and less caring of population’. Anderson (2002) indicated that the ‘success of effective democracy’ in nation states is based on sustained and maintained amendments of ‘historic foundations of democracy’ that were laid down (by colonialists)’ and is measured by ‘standard equivalent to those that were used to develop a national identity’. Donaldson (2002) found that following disputed general elections, ‘coalitions governments’ are formed and ‘devolution of power’ gains priority. In order to avoid ‘brewing a recipe of conflict and tension’ that may result into a tribal war (Anderson, 2002) and consequently prevent or minimize cases of tribal clashes or racial clashes that can negatively affect the economy of the nation or state. Political conflicts have in the past been associated with destruction of property and fluctuations in economy. Domain of coalition governments Following introduction of ‘coalition governments’ and subsequent introduction of a ‘premier position with or without executive powers’, Anderson (2002) and Anthony (2002) may help to ‘quench wars’ that are triggered by disputed general election results7. Accordingly (Fawcett and Hurrell, 1995) effective democracy should not be limited to nation states and there is need for ‘input of international relations’ in order to reduce civil strive. Personalities in conflict resolutions are used to negotiate introduction of ‘coalition governments’ and ‘political personalities are chosen from participating political parties in order to negotiate modalities of sharing power and possibly ‘amend acts’ of parliament that do not favour introduction of a ‘coalition government’. Effective democracy ‘is not possible to attain’ (Fawcett and Hurrell, 1995) if it is limited to nation states ‘because of lack of experience to manage it’ as well as inadequate resources to effect a nation state. Similar ideas are echoed by Anthony (2002) and Anderson (2002) in that ‘some nation states are poor’ in terms of material resources as well as human resource. Srinivasan (2006) pointed out that such nation states may ‘fail to develop’. Possible effects Anthony (2002) has suggested that ‘devolution of power’ and instituting ‘coalition government’ has its own associated ‘political risks’. This (Anthony, 2002) occurs ‘if the government at any one time excludes people’s input’ and the result is a ‘loss of faith and good will of the electorate’. This can also trigger ‘statewide demonstrations to push the government to allow democracy to exist’. On the same note, (Fawcett and Hurrell, 1995) have suggested that such an outcome ‘encourages activisms’ and can lead into a motion of ‘no confidence.’ Anderson (2002) suggested political critics are concerned about variations8 that have related domain of problem. Consequently, this forms a sub-set of ‘methodologies of handling efficiency, controlling participation and measurement of accountability.’ Anderson (2002) and Mccormick (2007) all have agreed that ‘across nation states, different terms are used to describe’ this tendency that critics to effective have named ‘deliberate democracy or radical democracy. Ideas by (Kranso, 2002) propose learners do not meet and understand the ‘scope of skill’ for measuring ‘effective democracy.’ Anderson (2002) has suggested ‘in the US, where separation of powers is well established’, students are taught about systems of governments” Anderson agrees that evaluative democracy helps to ‘minimize political campaigning’ and competently helps to ‘establish accountability of political and government decision making through standards of collective interests’. Srinivasan (2006) and Anderson (2002) both agree that ‘representative democracy is kept alive by ‘presence of funds’ and this (Anderson, 2002) is a gateway to ‘corruption’ although there may be a constructive check of powers of the representative. And even in the presence of these constructive checks to validate powers of the representatives, the checks are also vulnerable to abuse (Anderson, 2002). Ideas put forward by Anderson (2002) suggest ‘where democracies are weak, government corruption, favourism or incompetence help to fuel; ‘risks of hostile opposition’ and this leads into ‘fall of political giants’. Similarly, Anderson (2002) proposed that ‘democracies may discriminate minority in favour of majority’ either in terms of race or in terms of tribal lines as observed in Nigeria (Anderson, 2002) where the greater part of the population is composed of Muslims and Christians. Anderson (2002) has also pointed out that ‘those with non-democratic political ambitions may use ideals of democracy to attain power and influence.’ This does not provide fair grounds for elections. Civic participation requires understandings of why it has been weak in many states. On the political fronts, it has been a hard task to unveil why political scientists have failed to indentify incentives and non-incentives that could contribute to active civic participation (Przeworski et al., 1999). Thompson (1970) reported that civic participation needs development of cognitive and motivational resources in order for its potential to be fully tapped. Thompson (1970) was for the opinion that citizens actively participate in morally important issues if they understand the value they could derive from their active participation. . Mayer and Perrineau (1992) and Norris (1999) both have argued that institutional structure and polarity of the party system plays a great role in determining procurement of resources that are required to enable civic participation. On the other hand Przeworski et al. (1999) if the political system has defined clarity of its goals, civic participation is highly encouraged. Hix and Lord (1997) and Thompson (1970) agree that polarity of a political party system encourages mobilization of resources that make it possible for active civic participation. This encourages blossom of democracy in a nation state in that polarity of a political system has an effect of simplifying electoral choices and also creates an environment where clear ideological conflicts aid in magnifying socialization of citizens. Limiting democratic values within a state has an effect of dissolving nation’s political issues into political problems transnational democracy is backed up by four theories that are democratic inter-governmentalism, radical republican democracy, cosmopolitan and deliberative democracy. Radical republican democracy According to Held (1996) radical republican democracy shares similar principles with the theories of direct democracy and civic participatory democracy. Held indicated that radical republican democracy is based on neo-Marxist critiques of liberal democracy and therefore qualifies to be a function of effective civic participation and achievement of social and economic equality. Equivalently, radical republican democracy shares similar values with civic republican tradition based on principles of citizen freedom that are sustained by sense of political community and aimed at a common target of achievement (Barns 1995). Held (1995) argues that those who advocate for radical pluralist democracy forge for the structuring of alternative forms of global governance and this does not satisfy the principles of world order. Territorial democracy Barns (1995) and Held (1995) agree that territorial democracy delivers democratic visions if well the rule of law does is not discriminative and political violence does not prevail. Cosmopolitan Democracy According to Held (1995) evolution of cosmopolitan democracy had objectives of serving institutional and political interests between nation states. Held (1995) indicated that principles of liberal international order for instance, rule of law and human rights, involved development of ‘new global constitutional settlement in which democratic principles are firmly entrenched’. According to Held (1995, p.234) cosmopolitan democracy seeks ‘a political order of democratic associations, cities and nations as well as of regions and global networks’. Held (1995, p.234) suggested that cosmopolitan democracy model ‘is central to the principle of democratic autonomy, namely the ‘entitlement to autonomy within the constraints of community’ (Held 1995, p.156). Held (1995, p.156) and McGrew et al. (1999, p70) argued that this need is assured through establishment of ‘…powers and constraints, and rights and duties, which transcend the claims of nation and states’ Accordingly Held (1995) and McGrew et al. (1999) suggested that the principle of democratic autonomy depends upon ‘… the establishment of an international community of democratic states and societies that is committed to upholding a democratic public law both within and across their own boundaries’. Liberal democracy According to Held (1995) and McGrew et al. (1999) liberal democracy is a function of critical theory, participatory democracy theory and civic republicanism and is distinguished from democratic inter-governmentalism by its radical agenda. Liberal democrats agree citizen participation helps to foster9 the interests of stability, security and state administration. Politicians across many nations value civic participation and leadership. The liberal advocacy for good citizenship is basically an ethical appeal for the citizens to be honest and encourages citizens to refrain from prioritizing their private self interest over public interest. The only problem that liberal democrats are likely to face is what has been termed as active citizenship’10 that is meant to sustain national integration. The concept of fostering ‘active citizenship’, applies to republican democracy. In the light of liberal democracy, globalization has been accused for fueling conflict between economic liberalism and liberal human rights. On the other hand, liberal minimalism has failed to facilitate effective critiques of governments or make any amendments that could transform its theory of democracy. With this respect, Karl Popper11 reported the need to resist any tendencies geared towards devaluing liberal democratic achievements. Deliberative Democracy Deliberative democracy is a model of democracy whose political autonomy has a strong foundation in the practical reasoning of citizens. The objective of deliberative democracy is to create an enabling environment for deliberative reasoning amongst its citizens and their representatives. The quality of citizen deliberation on political issues is the core virtue criterion for legitimacy of democracy by definition. A true representation of deliberative democracy is therefore one that is built on the consents of its citizens. Deliberative democracy of the radical kind finds application in all forms of organizations. Deliberative citizenship finds application at any level of public politics where a decision making is a necessity, either within or without the borders of a state. Relevant organizations for deliberation would include members of respective political parties, parliamentary members, executives and judiciary personalities within the nation state. Deliberative citizens can operate through non-governmental organizations that work to reform and add value to the policies of governments and transnational institutions. Deliberation has no limits to institutions within a state; deliberative reasoning is needed of citizens and their international deliberative representatives whether they initially were governmental or non-governmental institutions. Deliberative democracy can help in formation of new ethical communities of global citizens that could provide civic unity and principles of good citizenship that a nation state might have lost. In spite of all criticism leveled against deliberative democracy, deliberative democracy is more positioned to address problems that are associated with liberal democracies. This is because deliberative values have a civic priority and are basically procedural. Hence deliberative values have a wide domain for active citizenship over a wide range of issues both within and beyond territorial borders of nation state. In this respect, concept of global citizenship as governed by tenets of global ethics provides a critical perspective on issues beyond the borders of a nation state and this stimulates practical political responses to globalization. Deliberative values that form core function of deliberative democracy provides regulative ideals that are vital for managing conflicts that are subject to identity politics. Dryzek (1990), Deudney (1998) and Thompson (1999) have suggested that deliberative democrats12 are ‘…interested in the discursive sources of existing systems of global governance’ and the role of transnational civil society ‘…in establishing deliberative democratic control over the terms of political discourse and so the operation of Kymlicka (1999), Dryzek (1999) and Eckersley (2000) agreed that advocates of deliberative democracy argue that deliberative democracy13 ‘…offers a set of principles upon which inclusive, responsive and responsible transnational democracy can be constructed’. According to Dryzek (1999) and Eckersley (2000) this ‘…arises from its rather eclectic philosophical origins, which embrace the traditions of critical theory, discourse analysis, republicanism, and participatory and direct democracy’. According to (Saward 1998) critics14 of deliberative democracy argue that it is not a discrete model of democracy as far as mechanism for resolving and legitimising public decisions is concerned. Saward (1998) suggested that this criticism is valid whether the focus is transnational, local or national democracy. Saward 1998) indicated that ‘…deliberative democracy15 tends to overlook the problems which language and cultural diversity present to the construction of a genuine transnational deliberative public sphere’. Kymlicka (1999) agrees this cannot simply be wished away as a ‘…technical matter of translation’ but on the contrary it raises serious issues about ‘…the role of language and culture in defining the conditions of possibility of genuine political deliberation16’. Accordingly Kymlicka (1999) argues ‘…there is significant silence about how intractable conflicts of interests or values can be resolved deliberately without recourse to some authoritatively imposed solution and consequently deliberative democracy ‘…may be of marginal value in dealing with many of the most pressing global distributional or security issues – from debt relief to humanitarian intervention respectively - which figure on the world political agenda’. Conclusion Effective democracies should be implemented within nation’s states in order to foster openness and transparency. Localized democracies have an effect of bringing about protocol oriented consultation, better communication and economic decentralization and eventually this has potential to make democratic institutions to be more accountable to its citizens. At the same time, better governance has ability to strengthen vertical accountability of institutions to its citizens and foster horizontal accountability between institutions. In general, the theories of cosmopolitan and deliberative democracy according to (Held, 1995) provide necessary ‘pre-conditions for bringing democratization of world order’ hence can be considered to be complimentary accounts of ‘transnational democracy’. Dryzek (2000) indicated that the primary concern of deliberative democracy is with the ‘discursive sources of world order’. Similarly, Dryzek (2000) has suggested a need for significance communicative power of civil society in democratizing global governance. According to Dryzek (2000) the primary interest of cosmopolitan democracy lies within specification of ‘appropriate constitutional and institutional orders’. Dryzek (2000) has shared views for cultivation and entrenchment of democracy beyond the state with Held (1995). Similarly advocates of ‘cosmopolitan democracy and deliberative democracy’ take transnational democracy ‘not as an alternative to national democracy but in part as its salvation as well’ (Clark 1999). Ideally, cosmopolitan and deliberative theories of transnational democracy form persuasive arguments for democracy that’s applicable beyond borders. Therefore, effective democracy cannot be entirely limited to nation states. Reference list Anderson, James. (2002). Transnational democracy: political spaces and boarder crossing. Routledge, New York. Beetham, D. and C. Lord (1998). Legitimacy and the European Union. London. Longman. Burnheim, J. (1995). Power-trading and the environment. Environmental Politics 4(4): 49-65. Cenap Carmak (2006). International criminal court in world politics. International journal on world peace. Vol. 23. Clark, I. (1999). Globalization and International Relations Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Deudney, D. (1998). Global village sovereignty. The Greening of Sovereignty. K. T. Litfin. Boston, MIT Press: pp299-325. Donaldson, John: (1928). International economic relations: a treatise on world economy and world politics. longman, green. Dryzek, J. S. (1999). Transnational democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy 7(1): pp30-51. Dryzek, J. S. (1999). Transnational democracy.The Journal of Political Philosophy 7(1): pp30-51. Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative Democracy, Ecological Representation and Risk: Towards a democracy of the affected, Mimeo. Fawcett, Louise and hurrell, Andrew: (1995). Regionalism in world politics: regional organization and international order. oxford university press. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and Global Order. Cambridge, Polity Press. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and Global Order. Cambridge, Polity Press. Hirst, P. (2000). Between the local and the global: Democracy in the Twenty First Century. Balancing Democracy. R. Axtmann. London, Routledge. Hix, S. and Lord, C. (1997) Political Parties in the European Union. London: Macmillan. Jean, Krasno: (2003). Colleges and universities fail to meet demands for teaching international relations. UN chronicle, vol. 40. Kymlicka, W. (1999). Citizenship in an era of globalization. Democracy's Edges. I. Shapiro and C. Hacker-Cordon. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Marks, G., Scharpf, F., Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W. (1996) Governance in the European Union. London: Mayer, N. and Perrineau, P. (1992) Les comportements politiques. Paris: Armand Colin. Mccormick, james M. (2007). Democracy and international relations: critical theories/problematic practices. Contemporary Southeast Asia. Vol. 23. McGrew, A. (1999). The WTO:Technocracy or Banana Republic? Global Trade and Global Mcgrew, Anthony. (2002).Transnational democracy: theories and practice. In. stokes, Geoffrey and carter April, (eds.) democratic theory today. Challenges for the 21st centrury, Cambridge, UK, polity press. Pp 269-294. Mitrany, D. (1975). A Working Peace System (1943). A functional Theory of Politics. P. Norris, P. (1999) Institutional Explanations for Political Support, in P. Norris (ed.) Critical Citizens, Global Patomaoki, Heikki. (2002): After international relations: critical realism and (re)construction of world politics. Routledge. Przeworski, A., Stokes, S. C. and Manin, B. (eds) (1999) Democracy, Accountability and Representation. Sage. Saward, M. (1998). The Terms of Democracy. Cambridge, Polity Press. Simonds, Frank H. and Emeny, Brooks (1935).The greatest powers in world politics: international relations and economic nationalism. American book co. Taylor, A. and Thomas, C. Social Issues. ed. London, Routledge. Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–35. Taylor. London, LSE/Martin Robertson. Thompson, D. (1970). The Democratic Citizen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, D. (1999). Democratic Theory and Global Society.The journal of Political Philosophy 7(2): pp111-125. Read More